SAN ANDRES, Miguel Noel A.

4B, 2012-049623
TOPIC: Nominal Damages
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AIDA MARQUEZ, Accused-Appellant.
April 13, 2011, G.R. No. 181440, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
FACTS:
According to the complainant, Carolina Cunanan Merano (Merano), she met Marquez at the
beauty parlor where she was working as a beautician. Merano confessed to easily trusting
Marquez because aside from her observation that Marquez was close to her employers, Marquez
was also nice to her and her co-employees, and was always giving them food and tip.
After a trip to a beach in Laguna, Marquez allegedly borrowed Merano’s then three-month old
daughter Justine Bernadette C. Merano (Justine) to buy her some clothes, milk and food. Merano
said she agreed because it was not unusual for Marquez to bring Justine some things whenever
she came to the parlor. When Marquez failed to return Justine in the afternoon as promised,
Merano went to her employers’ house to ask them for Marquez’s address. However, Merano said
that her employers just assured her that Justine will be returned to her soon.
Merano averred that she searched for her daughter but her efforts were unsuccessful until she
received a call from Marquez on November 11, 1998. During that call, Marquez allegedly told
Merano that she will return Justine to Merano the following day and that she was not able to do
so because her own son was sick and was confined at the hospital. Marquez also allegedly asked
Merano for Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00) for the expenses that she incurred while Justine
was with her.9 When the supposed return of Justine did not happen, Merano claimed that she
went to Marquez’s house, using the sketch that she got from her employers’ driver, but Marquez
was not home. Upon talking to Marquez’s maid, Merano learned that Justine was there for only a
couple of days. Merano left a note for Marquez telling her that she will file a case against
Marquez if Justine is not returned to her.
Merano afterwards went to see then Mayor Alfredo Lim to ask for his help. Merano said that
Mayor Lim referred her to Inspector Eleazar of San Pedro, Laguna, who assigned two police
officers to accompany her to Marquez’s house. When Merano did not find Justine in Marquez’s
house, she went back to Inspector Eleazar who told her to come back the following day to
confront Marquez whom he will call. Merano came back the next day as instructed but Marquez
did not show up.
 Merano gave her sworn statement to the police and filed a complaint against Marquez. On
February 11, 1999, Marquez allegedly called Merano up again to tell her to pick up her daughter
at Modesto Castillo’s (Castillo) house in Tiaong, Quezon. The following day, Merano,
accompanied by Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Diosdado Fernandez and SPO4 Rapal, went to
the house of Castillo in Quezon. Merano claimed that Castillo told her that Marquez sold Justine
to him and his wife and that they gave Marquez Sixty Thousand Pesos (₱60,000.00) supposedly
for Merano who was asking for money.
RTC found Marquez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor.
ISSUE:
Whether or not nominal damages should be awarded
RULING:

Yes, the award of nominal damages is allowed under Article 2221 of the New Civil Code which
states that:

Article 2221. Nominal damages are adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has
been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him.

It took Merano almost a year to legally recover her baby. Justine was only three months old
when this whole debacle began. She was already nine months old when Merano saw her again.
She spent her first birthday at the Reception and Study Center for Children of the Department of
Social Welfare and Development.37 Evidently, Merano’s right as a parent which was violated and
invaded must be vindicated and recognized, thereby justifying the award of nominal damages.